[Update: In response to critical comments: The focus of this post is not the oily sheen. Even though that sheen is located a couple of hundred feet downstream of an oil and gas distribution facility, the toe of slope of an old landfill, and old chemical drums, I do not disagree that it could be natural. Please focus on the the following questions:

is the source of the flow a leachate seep? Or normal runoff, wetlands discharge, or ponding water?

what is the source of the iron? Is it the landfill or is it natural? If it’s natural, why is this the only place I see it a along the riverbank?

was the vegetation killed by natural ponding water? Or by some toxic condition?

ALEXANDRIA TWP. – The orange substance leaking from the landfill on the Frenchtown-Milford Road near H.J. Opdyke Lumber is harmless, said a spokesman from the state Department of Environmental Protection.

Larry Ragonese said the bright orange rivulet trickling from the corner of the old Riegel Paper landfill into the Delaware River is rusted iron, not a toxic chemical. “Fortunately, it’s nothing bad”, he said. It’s a natural occurrence.”

Since when is landfill leachate a “natural occurrence“? On what basis and monitoring data has DEP claimed that this leachate is “nothing bad“? How does DEP know what was disposed of in that landfill? Has the landfill been properly closed in compliance with DEP regulations? What does the groundwater monitoring data say? Have the Delaware River and adjacent streams been sampled (water column and sediments)?

Despite the 95 degree heat and high humidity, I took a little ramble at that landfill today. I walked the perimeter of the landfill, the top of the landfill, the zone between the landfill and the river, a stream corridor just north of the landfill, and the Delaware River frontage. And what I saw was not pretty.

I saw several leachate seeps, that looked to be composed of ferrous metals and oily substances that created sheens on the water. (Landfill leachate is typically composed of a soup of toxic chemicals.) Vegetation adjacent to the seeps was completely dead. Leachate seeps were discharging directly to a stream from stream banks just north of the landfill. Leachate seeps were discharging directly to the Delaware River via overland flow just south of the landfill. Very old sediment control fences were down and totally ineffective. Any landfill cover and/or cap was breached in numerous places by roads, paths, and vegetation. I saw only one groundwater monitoring well, that was located on the eastern edge of the landfill, just off County Route 619, but none between the landfill and the Delaware River on the western landfill perimeter, the likely direction of groundwater flow. The monitoring well had not be sampled for some time (the lock was rusted), there were no security or public access controls (like a fence), no hazardous cleanup signs posted, and it looked like someone had recently attempted to locate monitoring wells because vegetation had recently been cleared in some areas. There appeared to be numerous violations of DEP regulations.

TRENTON â€” In a rare rebuke, federal officials criticized the New Jersey State Police for mistakes they made last month during an emergency drill at the Salem Hope Creek nuclear plant in southern New Jersey.

During a simulated nuclear disaster, it took the State Police 62 minutes to inform the public within 60 miles of the reactors whether to evacuate or seek nearby shelter, about 17 minutes too long for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which said the response was seriously deficient.

So the people living near the nuke plant wouldn’t be notified until overÂ an hour after an accident?

They’d probablyÂ be glowing by then.

This poor performance is consistent wth theÂ lousy response to theÂ Gulf, but obviously nuke response must be a lot faster and more aggressive than an oil spill response.

But now that the Gulf disaster has exposed corporate malfeasance andÂ gross government oversight failures, maybe someone will start asking questions about NJ DEP’s chemical and oil spill preventionÂ and emergency response capabilities.

It is well known that Governor Christie took over $400 million of Clean Energy Funds paid by ratepayers (you and me) to subsidize renewable energy to cover his tax cuts for the wealthy (see excellent NJSpotlight coverage:

Trenton â€” The Christie administration is moving away from tough anti-pollution enforcement, with anticipated fine revenue falling by more than half, according to state records posted today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). The precipitous drop in fine revenue will further reduce an already shrinking enforcement presence by the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), which depends on those funds to pay for inspections and monitoring of polluting industries.

The Christie budget numbers project a steep drop in DEP enforcement fine revenue from more than $14 million in FY 2009 (the last year in the books) to an anticipated $6,840,000. This trend is magnified when looking at total DEP revenues from fees and fines combined. The figures show an estimated $40 million reduction:

FY 09 (actual collected) $158,757,000

Christie FY 11 (anticipated) $118,754,000

â€œThese reductions amount to under-the-table givebacks to corporations at the expense of the public,â€ stated New Jersey PEER Director Bill Wolfe, a former DEP Analyst. â€œIn a time of billion dollar deficits and draconian budget cuts, Governor Christie is cutting polluter fines.â€

While the impact will be felt across all programs at DEP, it will fall especially hard on some high impact areas. For example, a recent report identified the Kuehne Chemical in South Kearny (between Newark and Jersey City) as the most dangerous chemical plant in the United State. Yet under the Christie budget oil and chemical plant safety fines are only expected to be $50,000, not enough to support a credible deterrent to violations of critical chemical safety requirements and shifting the burden to pay for the compliance monitoring program to taxpayers, instead of the chemical industry.

Other changes also indicate a deliberately softer approach to polluters. For example, DEP just revived the Whitman-era Office of Dispute Resolution. Under Whitman, that office served as industryâ€™s back door to override enforcement staff and negotiate voluntary agreements in lieu of formal enforcement action. Significantly, DEP Commissioner Bob Martin is housing this Office of Dispute Resolution under the new Assistant Commissioner for Economic Development, a former auto industry and Chamber of Commerce lawyer.

â€œWhat is going on is about as subtle as changing the DEP motto to â€˜Letâ€™s Make a Deal,â€™â€ added Wolfe. â€œCommissioner Martin repeatedly talks about metrics as means to measure his record but, by any yardstick, cutting enforcement fines by half is a bad indicator.â€

[Update: 7/25/10 – I missed this AC Press editotrial when it ran on June 28: DEP’s new science advisory board / Noble goal. While I like the fact that it bluntly calls out Jeff Tittel for his spin, Â it repeatsÂ theÂ same errors and misunderstandings from the news story, concluding with this over the top error:

A scientific advisory board made up solely of members of the environmental community would speak with little authority”

Where on earth did editors get that false understanding? For the record, the SAB has no, none, zero, nada “members of the envrionmental community” – there is one on aÂ Subcommittee. But the SAB is packed with 6 industry reps or industryÂ consultants.

Basing an editorial on misinformation surely missed the key issues, one of which is this inconvenient truth:

3.Â The Dupontâ€™s representative on the SAB is identified as a â€œmicrobiologistâ€. But Dr. Gannon does not practice microbiology at Dupont â€“ he is a high levelÂ manger and head of Dupontâ€™s global corporateÂ strategy on environmental compliance.

I assure you, GannonÂ was not appointed to the SAB for his microbiological work and he will not do any microbiology on the SAB.

He is on the SABÂ to represent Dupontâ€™s strategic corporateÂ interests. Period. And Dupontâ€™s interests in DEP science involve BILLIONS of dollars in NJ liability, as well as BILLIONS more globally as NJâ€™s scientific work on Dupont toxic pollutants (like PFOA) is used in regulatory work by other states,Â EPA, and internationally.

Miller is a good reporter, so the source of the problem is in his sources, not his reporting.Â So let’s take a closer lookÂ at Â just some of the more egregious falsehoods and spinÂ in that story.

On a positive note, it was refereshing to see a scientist honestly acknowledge a major problem, which is the irresponsible reluctance of scientists to enter the public debate on scientific issues, evenÂ when those issues are being distorted.Â Most scientists have hidden behind the protectiveÂ facade of so calledÂ detached science, and that abdication hasÂ allowed industry and political hacks toÂ fill the void and manipulate public debate (see “Doubt is Their Product“). Miller writes:

[Rutgers professor and Chair Judith] Weis said people have become more distrustful about science, sometimes because nonscientists have a louder voice when it comes to factious issues such as climate change.

“I suppose the public has. People like Rush Limbaugh have better PR skills than the scientific community. Most scientists would prefer just to do their own research and not get involved in the public arena,” she said.

Thank you professor Weiss – and I hope you continue toÂ have the same integrity in calling out industry scientists on the SABÂ as you do withÂ Rush Limbaugh.

But from that high note,Â the story goes steeplyÂ downhill and reveals remarkable ignorance and/or deceit. I’ll take them in order.

1. The Business and Industry Association lobbyist quote is set up by a question of whether DEP is “cherry picking data”. NJBIAÂ is portrayedÂ as a “critic” who “often questions the scientific rationale behind regulations”.

“The DEP has had the ability to cherry-pick scientific data and use the most conservative standards as they see fit,” said David Brogan, vice president for environmental policy at the New Jersey Business and Industry Association. “Having more people with scientific backgrounds gathering data and using other resources will only help to get a fair and balanced approach to rulemaking.”

Personally,Â I like DaveÂ Brogan, but he’s no scientist. Brogan isÂ a lobbyist who is well paid to spin and represent the economic interests of his members. For him to call for “fair and balanced” DEP rulemakingÂ is no different than the Fox News and Rush Limbaugh version.Â As such, Brogan is a perfect example of exactlyÂ the PR problem Weiss correctly targeted.

Substantively, Brogan has managed to conflate and confuseÂ a host of distinct issues. He blendsÂ issues ofÂ credible quality assured data, to data interpretation, to necessaryÂ assumptions that always are required in the absence of data and knowledge,Â to regulatory policy (which is a blend of science and law), to the legal and institutional issue of regulatory standards.

As Brogan is well aware,Â there is a huge controversy now raging in the legislature about DEP standards, how standards are set, and whether DEP or the legislature should set them.Â Industry lobbyists are seeking to strip DEP of the power to set any standards that are stricter than federal minimums, which would gut NJ’s public health and environmental protections, which have long been – and virtually across the board – Â far more stringent than federal minimums.

2. The Builders Association spokesperson repeats Brogan’s mistake on the SAB role in rulemaking, and talks about bringing scientific credibility to DEP regulations.

After getting a chuckle about the Builders and scientific credibility in the same sentence, let’sÂ state the obvious: a) the Builders want to build,Â everywhere, in a way that maximizes profits; b) DEP and environmental laws sometimes limit how much they can build or impose additional costs onÂ construction that reduces their profits; and c) ergo: this has zero to do with science, and everything to do with land use and economics and political power.

3.Â The Dupont’s representative on the SAB is identified as a “microbiologist”. But Dr. Gannon does not practice microbiology at Dupont – he is a high levelÂ manger and head of Dupont’s global corporateÂ strategy on environmental compliance.

I assure you, GannonÂ was not appointed to the SAB for his microbiological work and he will not do any microbiology on the SAB.

He is on the SABÂ to represent Dupont’s strategic corporateÂ interests. Period. And Dupont’s interests in DEP science involve BILLIONS of dollars in NJ liability, as well as BILLIONS more globally as NJ’s scientific work on Dupont toxic pollutants (like PFOA) is used in regulatory work by other states,Â EPA, and internationally.

4. Which brings us to serious questions about scientific bias and conflicts of interest (they are two different things).

In response to our criticisms, these original restrictions were allegedly tightened in June, but only AFTER the SAB members wereÂ already selected.

Now that DEP appointed the SAB, theyÂ continue to fail to enforceÂ and implement any ethicalÂ restrictions. Instead, DEP has left that all upÂ to theÂ integrity of individual scientists to determineÂ on a case by case basis.

Dupont has inherent bias and deep conflicts of interest,Â so they never should have been selected on the SAB. And note that it is Mr Gannon who willÂ decide when and if to recuse himself, not DEP or an independent ethicsÂ body:

DuPont’s Gannon said the board has a broad membership and strict guidelines about conflicts of interest to prevent industry or political bias. For example, he would abstain from issues that directly affect his business, he said.

In their board applications, several Rutgers professors recognized potential conflicts, namely that their institution or colleagues receive DEP grants for their research.

Earth to Miller: even with a conflict, there is a huge difference betweenÂ a Rutgers academicÂ scientist and oneÂ that works for a major corporate polluter like Dupont. Hello!

5. Â Under the OrderÂ that created the SAB, the DEP CommissionerÂ sets the SAB’s issues agenda.Â The SAB does not select the issues they will work on.

Virtually every source to the story got this basic and important issue very wrong. The SAB is not the forum to debate priorities and select pet issues.

“I don’t know if we’re going to start with air, water, soil or food,” Robson said. “My impression is that what will be on the table is the science behind the entire suite of things under the DEP’s purview.

The SAB will start whenÂ DEP asks them to and work on what DEP asks them to. Period.

But worse,Â DEP spokesperson inadvertently revealsÂ that DEPÂ has no scientific priorities and no science agenda, in this killer quote from the DEP press office:

“They’re[the SAB] on call for any issue that comes up.”

Any issue that just randomly comes up? Right.

And the token “environmentalist” (who chairs a Standing Committee, and is not on the fullÂ SAB) also just doesn’t understand his own role, the role of his Committee, or the SAB and DEP’s role:

Board member Emile DeVito, director of science for the New Jersey Conservation Foundation, said he is considering calling his own meeting of the ecological subcommittee he chairs.

DeVito, a trustee for the Pinelands Preservation Alliance, is studying rare plants in the Pine Barrens of Ocean County this month.

“I would like to bring questions to the table rather than allow the political agenda bring issues to the table,” he said.

“One key issue I see on the horizon is if people will focus on solar power, what habitats and land areas do we cover up? There are already 5 square miles of applications to cover up farms with solar panels,” DeVito said. “It would be nice if we could put them in built environments instead of sacrificing natural areas or farms.”

[Update: upon reflection, it is actually worse for Devito to raise petÂ solar/farm preservation issues on which he has both bias and conflicts of interest,Â than forÂ Gannon of Dupont to raise PFOA. At least PFOA is a legitimate scientific issue.]

And DeVito – similar toÂ Brogan – illustrates an ignorance of the difference between science and policy. The issues involved with locating solar facilities “in built environments” instead ofÂ “sacrificingÂ farmlands” (is that a scientific journal term?)Â is an energy and land use legal and policy issue. It has very little to do with science. And the science issues are subordinantÂ to the legal andÂ policy framework.

This is embarrassing and shocking, that these fundamentalÂ distinctions are just ignored – and by our “best and brighest”, no less.

“The public can’t tell the difference between science and a smokescreen,” he said. “The advisory board can sift out what’s real science.”

No further comment on that. Maybe, just maybe, this is why “the public” resents environmentalists and why the corporations are so successful in manipulating public opinion to create a backlash against “elites”.

Not only that, but Koonin is one of theÂ world’s leadingÂ proponents of aÂ “beyondÂ Strangelovian“Â technology scheme known asÂ “geoengineering” – an absurdÂ “intervention in the climate system”Â Â where aerosols would be injected into the upper atmosphere to dampen sunlight and reduceÂ global warming.

If anything, theÂ man made disaster in the Gulf is an example of technological hubris – of engineers gone wild.

It is the result ofÂ a profound arrogance and moralÂ failure to understand or even consider risks to natural systems and human communities caused by technological schemes.

Another key lesson of theÂ Gulf is what Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse described in an historic Senate speech as (text and video are here)

the revolting specter of an agency of government subservient to – captive to – the industry it is supposed to regulate.Â […]

So the question is, after all those years of corporate control of government in the Bush years, how far-reaching is the insinuation of corporate influence? We know big Pharma wrote the Bush pharmacy benefit legislation. We know big oil and big coal sat down in secret with Dick Cheney to write their energy policy. But down below the decks, down in the guts of the administration’s agencies, how far were the tentacles of corporate influence allowed to reach? How many industry plants are stealthily embedded in the government, there to serve the industry, not the administration or the public.